Check the link and you'll find out.
Do you really think it's fine to execute someone who is mentally retarded?
Bush Condems China's Human right's
- Thread starter dodo
- Start date
Check the link and you'll find out.
Do you really think it's fine to execute someone who is mentally retarded?
R
rmelly
Guest
If he committed a crime that would otherwise have led to his execution, then yes. Presumably the alternative would have been the remainder of his life in prison - would you find this acceptable?
I was referring to Afghanistan.
The Afghan goverment (the one the US formed) had welcomed US firms and the US goverment pledge to help reconstruct their infrastructure (the one the US near destoryed). the US trade and development agency have been in Afghanistan for the last 5 years or so "aiding" with gas/oil other resources. Why? because they trade. Did they trade before?
I assume it will go the same way in Iraq. How many US firm are there now? Lots and they control almost everything including the Iraq "goverment"
It's all about control and the US have it.
These "wars" are a long term investment.
I find both outcomes repulsive the latter being less so. Detaining someone in a mental institution that is able to cope with their needs whilst keeping people safe would be a better option.
But it's a bit rich to laud GW for telling off the Chinese when he has signed the death warrent for at least two people who were mentally ill. Hardly a paragon of Human Rights.
R
rmelly
Guest
Afghanistan wasn't any where near a first world country before the invasion, so I'm not sure how much the US destroyed - maybe some caves now need renovating after the bunker busters?
To say the US invaded Afghanistan to get access to a market of 30 million people is a bit much. The per capita GDP for 2007 is ranked 172nd - ordinary Afghani's are not exactly queuing up for Hummers and iPhones.
Is the US the only country trading with Afghanistan? Do you think US companies / aid agencies etc should be precluded from trading with Afghanistan, or that it should be kept a backward country?
The US has no interest in 30 million Afghans, they are interested in the vast qamount of oil/gas/coal/copper and more. The US will supply the technology know how to exploit all these resources. Do you belive for one second that the US are doing this for the good of the Afghan people?
R
rmelly
Guest
What are the recognised reserves for Afghanistan for all of the above?
What's so wrong about that?
No, I took it as revenge.
are you asking me how much of each resource they have? do you wish to refute my claim that Afghanistan is a country rich in resources?
Whats wrong with the US raping a country of its natural resources? everything
The Taliban didn't want to play ball with the US and they suffered for it.
Most of the 9/11 attackers were Saudi's, I actually don't think any were Afgans.
Why don't you think they took revenge against Saudi Arabia?
Whats wrong with the US raping a country of its natural resources? everything
The Taliban didn't want to play ball with the US and they suffered for it.
Most of the 9/11 attackers were Saudi's, I actually don't think any were Afgans.
Why don't you think they took revenge against Saudi Arabia?
R
rmelly
Guest
I wasn't aware it was considered to be a country that rich in resources...for example it has coal reserves of 73 million tons versus US proven reserves of 273 billion.
Can you point me to 'official' details of their proven or provable oil reserves?
Not everyone sees it as 'raping'. I prefer to see as giving a much needed helping hand.
Because it wasn't state sanctioned by Saudi Arabia - had the Taliban not continued to host & protect bin laden and co. then the invasion would not have occured.
GeneralZod
Registered User
- Messages
- 1,198
There are easier countries to take over if you're just after their natural resources. Australia for example.
Sometimes it is as simple as it seems. The Americans invaded Afghanistan a couple of months after Sept 11th when emotions were still running high because the Taliban wouldn't give up Osama.
Since then American policy has shifted decisively to break the dependence on foreign oil and to stop buying it from people that use it to threaten the security interests of the US and its allies.
Sometimes it is as simple as it seems. The Americans invaded Afghanistan a couple of months after Sept 11th when emotions were still running high because the Taliban wouldn't give up Osama.
Since then American policy has shifted decisively to break the dependence on foreign oil and to stop buying it from people that use it to threaten the security interests of the US and its allies.
S
S.L.F
Guest
They both lost wars in Vietnam.
I seem to recall the Good Old US of A. invaded Grenada because their leaders were Socialist.
Gee how many years was it before the good old US of A decided to get involved with either of the world wars.
They sat on the fence until the Lusitania got sank.
Then Pearl Harbour was attacked.
The rest is history.
As has been said before they were trained and equipped by guess who 'Bush senior' amazing coincidence.
This goes for Saddam too!
Someone told me there's a street in Texas that was named after Saddam Hussain, funny old world.
They are still freedom fighters since they are now fighting a different invader.
Did they legitimately invade after Sept 11?
That's rich!
Bomb them into submission then help them out of the rubble then steal everything of value and claim you're doing a good turn to them.
So why was Iraq invaded?
No weapons of mass destruction!
No nothing.....well except for a lot of oil
Last edited by a moderator:
The motives for attacking both Iraq and Afganistan are similar, they both have something of use, oil and a path way to more oil, via the central Asia pipe line. They were seen as unstable in ways of trade and they both surround Iran which in the eyes of the US need to be watched.
The reason they overlook the Saudi Arabia link is because its the US's biggest trading partner.
The reason they overlook the Saudi Arabia link is because its the US's biggest trading partner.
Duke of Marmalade
Registered User
- Messages
- 4,596
Did you see that Olympic thingummy? When the Chinese President stood to say a few opening words, the whole 100,000 in the stadium obediently rose in his honour. Scary
I doubt whether even Hitler wielded such immense totalitarian authority.
I doubt whether even Hitler wielded such immense totalitarian authority.
R
rmelly
Guest
What about the eyes of the rest of the world...the UN has imposed sanctions on the country, so clearly it's not just the US that has concerns.
S
S.L.F
Guest
I don't remember the UN imposing sanctions on either the US or the UK for their illegal war in Iraq.
Aren't they very picky about who they impost sanctions on aren't they.
Sure Iran has supported terrorists.
So has the US, they supported the Taliban, gave them weapons, trained them and gave them logistical support
I'm sure if you could search their records you'd find that Bin Laden went here.
It would be the ideal place for some one like him to train.
That took me 2 seconds to find.
R
rmelly
Guest
Thankfully so.
The sanctions are nothing to do with terrorism - they are in response to their nuclear programme.
You found the records to say bin laden attended?
S
S.L.F
Guest
I doubt very much the hundreds of thousands of dead people who depended on the UN to be impartial would be heartened with your last comment
Just like the sanctions against Iraq for Weapons of mass destruction.
Why shouldn't Iran have nuclear power?
rmelly you read the article didn't you?
The US has been training terrorists since 1946 where else would they send Bin Laden, if they were going to send him to be trained.
Even if he didn't go there he would most certainly have had help from that terrorist school.
Last edited by a moderator:
R
rmelly
Guest
If the UN is so impartial, what's the problem?
No one believes they want it for anything other than producing nuclear weapons...maybe you do?
If we're just going to add 2 and 2 together and come up with 22, or make giant leaps based on a few 'facts', assertions, conjecture, assumptions etc...then give me a few minutes to patch together an alternative scenario with very little basis in fact - I'll be back to prove that bin laden is actually Dick Cheney in disguise.
S
S.L.F
Guest
I've done a bit more research and found [broken link removed]
It tells some of the dirty story of the Americans and the Afghanistan problem of their own making.
It tells some of the dirty story of the Americans and the Afghanistan problem of their own making.